Bibliographic record
Abstract
Une analyse du c. 277 indique que deux obligations distinctes sont imposees aux clercs dans l'Eglise latine: la continence sexuelle et le celibat. La continence est presentee comme la norme fondamentale. Alors que l'obligation du celibat est mitigee pour les diacres permanents, l'A. ne trouve aucun relâchement de la loi pour l'obligation fondamentale de la continence pour eux en droit canonique. Verifiant cette conclusion, l'A examine les dispositions pio-benedictines concernant le celibat des clercs et la continence, les normes post-conciliaires par lesquelles le diaconat (permanent) fut restaure en Occident et l'histoire legislative des dispositions du Code de 1983 a ce sujet. Il suggere que ces normes maintiennent l'obligation de continence pour les diacres permanents maries. L'A. examine ensuite les quelques arguments de la part d'erudits en faveur du maintien de l'exercice des droits conjugaux par les diacres permanents (principalement des arguments fondes sur le c. 4) et conclut que, bien qu'ils soient potentiellement applicables a ceux ayant recu les ordres sacres sans connaitre les exigences du droit en la matiere,ils sont insuffisants en soi pour entrainerune modification de l'obligation canonique traditionnelle de la continence repetee au c. 277. L'A. invite l'autorite ecclesiastique competente a articuler en des termes canoniques solides en soi pourquoi l'obligation de la continence ne devrait pas s'appliquer aux diacres permanents maries ou prendre les moyens necessaires pour que les programmes de formation des diacres permanents maries soient conformes a l'exigence de continence clericale afin que les candidats a l'ordination et leurs epouses puissent prendre une decision eclairee.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".